You are on page 1of 13

Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20!


Anti-Virus Comparative
Performance Test (Suite Products)
Impact of Internet Security Software on System Performance

Language: English
October 2013
Last Revision: 19
November 2013
Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- 2 -

Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Tested products 3
3. Test methods 4
4. Notes and comments 5
5. Test cases 7
6. Test results 8
7. Award levels reached in this test 12
8. Copyright and Disclaimer 13

Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- ! -

We want to make clear that the results in this report are intended only to give an indication of the
impact on system performance (mainly by the real-time/on-access components) of the various Inter-
net security products in these specific tests. Users are encouraged to try out the software on their
own PCs and see how it performs on their own systems.
Tested products
The following products were evaluated (with default settings) in this test

AhnLab V3 Internet Security 8.0
avast! Internet Security 2014
AVG Internet Security 2014
AVIRA Internet Security 2014
Bitdefender Internet Security 2014
BullGuard Internet Security 2014
Emsisoft Internet Security Pack 8.1
eScan Internet Security 2014
ESET Smart Security 7.0
Fortinet FortiClient Suite 5.0
F-Secure Internet Security 2014
G DATA Internet Security 2014
Kaspersky Internet Security 2014
Kingsoft Internet Security 2013.SP5
McAfee Internet Security 2014
Panda Internet Security 2014
Qihoo 360 4.2.2
Sophos Endpoint Protection 10.3
Norton Internet Security 2014
Tencent QQ PC Manager 8.1
ThreatTrack Vipre Internet Security 2014
Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2014
Please note that the results in this report apply only to the products/versions listed above (e.g. 64-
Bit versions, product version, etc.). Also, keep in mind that different vendors offer different (and
differing quantities of) features in their products.
The following activities/tests were performed under an up-to-date Windows 8 Pro 64-Bit system:
File copying
Archiving / Unarchiving
Encoding / Transcoding
Installing / Uninstalling applications
Launching applications
Downloading files
PC Mark 8 Professional Testing Suite

We used the latest product versions available at time of testing (end of October 2013).
We added Symantec Norton in this test, although the vendor did not apply to be included in our test-series.
The additional costs of testing the Symantec product were covered by a magazine.
Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- % -

Test methods
The tests were performed on an Acer Aspire XC600 machine with an Intel Core i5-3330 CPU (3GHz),
4GB of RAM and SATA II hard disks. The performance tests were done on a clean and fully updated
Windows 8 Pro 64-Bit system (English) and then with the installed Internet security software (with
default settings). The tests were done with an active Internet connection to allow for the real-world
impact of cloud services/features.
The hard disks were defragmented before starting the various tests, and care was taken to minimize
other factors that could influence the measurements and/or comparability of the systems. Optimizing
processes/fingerprinting used by the products were also considered this means that the results rep-
resent the impact on a system which has already been operated by the user for a while. The tests were
repeated several times (with and without fingerprinting) in order to get mean values and filter out
measurement errors. After each run, the workstation was defragmented and rebooted. We simulated
various file operations that a computer user would execute: copying
different types of clean files
from one place to another, archiving and unarchiving files, encoding and transcoding
audio and vid-
eo files, converting DVD files to iPod format, downloading files from the Internet, launching applica-
tions, etc. We also used a third-party, industry-recognized performance testing suite (PC Mark 8 Pro-
fessional) to measure the system impact during real-world product usage. Readers are invited to eval-
uate the various products themselves, to see how they impact on their systems (due to e.g. software
conflicts and/or user preferences, as well as different system configurations that may lead to varying
Security products need to load on systems at an early stage to provide security from the very begin-
ning this load has some impact on the time needed for a system to start up. Measuring boot times
accurately is challenging. The most significant issue is to define exactly when the system is fully
started, as many operating environments may continue to perform start-up activities for some time
after the system appears responsive to the user. It is also important to consider when the protection
provided by the security solution being tested is fully active, as this could be a useful measure of
boot completion as far as the security solution is concerned. Some security products load their ser-
vices very late at boot (or even minutes later). Users may notice that some time after the system has
loaded, it will become very slow for a little while; thus, it initially looks as though the system has
loaded very quickly, but in fact the security product just loads its services belatedly, leaving the sys-
tem more vulnerable. As we find this misleading, we still do not publish boot times in our reports.

We use around 3GB of data consisting of various file types and sizes (pictures, movies, audio files, various
MS Office documents, PDF files, applications/executables, Windows operating system files, archives, etc.).
Converting MP3 files to WAV, MP3 to WMA and AVI to MP4
Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- & -

Notes and comments
The on-access/real-time scanner component of anti-virus software runs as a background process to
check all files that are accessed, in order to protect the system continuously against malware threats.
For example, on-access scanners scan files as soon as they are accessed, while (e.g.) behaviour-
blockers add a different layer of protection and monitor what the file does when it is already execut-
ed/running. The services and processes that run in the background to do these tasks also require and
use system resources. Suite products usually have a higher impact on system performance than anti-
virus-only products, as more services/features are included and running in the background.
Security products need to be active deep in the system in order to protect it, e.g. to scan processes
and so on that are already active during the system start-up, to identify rootkits and other malware.
Those procedures add some extra time and thus a delay in system boot/start up.
If a product takes up too many system resources, users get annoyed and may either disable or unin-
stall some essential protective features (and thus considerably compromise the security of their sys-
tem) or may switch to security software that is less resource-hungry. Therefore, it is important not
only that anti-virus software provides high detection rates and good protection against malware, but
also that it does not degrade system performance or trouble users.
While this report looks at how much impact various Internet security products have on system perfor-
mance, it is not always the security software that is principally responsible for a slow system. Other
factors also play a role, and if users follow some simple rules, system performance can be improved
noticeably. The next sections address some of the other factors that may play a part.
A few common problems observed on some user PCs:
- Old hardware: If a PC already runs at a snails pace because it has ten-year-old hardware, us-
ing modern (security) software may make it unusable.
o If possible, buy a new PC that at least meets the minimum recommended requirements of
the software you want to use. Multi-Core processors are preferable.
o Adding more RAM does not hurt. If you use Windows 7 or Windows 8, you should use a
minimum of 4GB of RAM. If you use Windows XP or Vista, switch to Windows 7 or Windows
8 64-Bit.
o Make sure you have only ONE security program with real-time protection. If your new PC
came with a trial security suite, remove this before installing a different protection pro-

- Keep all your software up-to-date: Using an anti-virus version from e.g. 2011 may not pro-
tect you as well as the newer version would, even though you may still be able to update the
signatures. Please visit regularly and keep your operating system
up-to-date by installing the recommended patches. Any software can have vulnerabilities and
bugs, so keep all the software installed on your PC up-to-date: this will not only protect you
against many exploits and vulnerabilities, but also give you any other application improve-
ments that have been introduced.

Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- ' -

- Clean up the content of your hard disk:
o If your hard disk is almost full, your system performance will suffer accordingly. Leave at
least 20% of your disk space free and transfer your movies and other infrequently ac-
cessed files to another (external) disk. If money is not an issue, consider buying solid-
state drives (SSDs).
o Uninstall unneeded software. Often, the slowdown that users notice after installing an an-
ti-virus product is due to other software on the PC running in the background (that is,
due to software conflicts or heavy file access by other programs, each access requiring an-
ti-virus scanning).
o Remove unneeded entries/shortcuts from the Start-Up folder in the All Programs menu.
o If your PC is already messed up by residual files and registry entries left over by hundreds
of applications you installed and uninstalled after trying them out, reinstall a clean oper-
ating system and install only software you really need (fewer software installations means
fewer potential vulnerabilities and conflicts, and so on) and use e.g. an image/backup
tool in order to ensure that you do not have to reinstall everything manually in future.

- Defragment your hard disks regularly: A fragmented hard disk can have a very big impact on
system performance as well as considerably increasing the time needed to boot up the system.
Please note that this does not apply to solid-state drives (SSDs).

- Fingerprinting/Optimization: most anti-virus products use various technologies to decrease their
impact on system performance. Fingerprinting is such a technology, where already scanned files
do not get rescanned again for a while (or more rarely) or are whitelisted. This increases the
speed considerably (especially after a longer period of PC usage), but also adds some potential
risk, as not all files are scanned anymore. It is up to the user to decide what to do. We suggest
regularly performing a full-system scan (to be sure that all files are at least currently found to be
clean, and to further optimize the fingerprinting).

- Be patient: a delay of a few additional seconds due to security software is not necessarily a big
deal. However, if even with the suggestions above the performance of your PC still annoys you,
you should consider trying out another anti-virus product. If you only notice a slow-down after
using the anti-virus for a long time, there are probably other factors behind the slowdown. Never
reduce your security by disabling essential protection features, just in the hope of gaining a
slightly faster PC!

Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- ( -

Test cases
File copying
Some anti-virus products ignore some types of files by design/default (e.g. based on their file
extensions), or use fingerprinting technologies, which may skip already scanned files in order to
increase the speed (see comments on page 6). We copied a set of various common file types from one
physical hard disk to another physical hard disk.

Archiving and unarchiving
Archives are commonly used for file storage, and the impact of anti-virus software on the time taken
to create new archives or to unarchive files from existing archives may be of interest for most users.
We archived a set of different file types that are commonly found on home and office workstations.
The results already consider the fingerprinting/optimization technologies of the anti-virus products,
as most users usually make archives of files they have on their disk.
Music files are often stored and converted on home systems, and converting such files takes system
resources. Because of this, many home users may be interested to know if their anti-virus product
imposes a slowdown while converting multimedia files from one format to another. We encoded and
transcoded some multimedia files with FFmpeg and HandBrakeCLI.
Installing/uninstalling applications
We installed several popular applications with the silent install mode, then uninstalled them and
measured how long it took. We did not consider fingerprinting, because usually an application is in-
stalled only once.
Launching applications
Microsoft Office and PDF files are very common. We opened and then later closed some large docu-
ment files in Microsoft Office and some large PDF files in Adobe Acrobat Reader. The time taken for
the viewer or editor application to launch, and afterwards to close, was measured. Although we list
the results for the first opening and the subsequent openings, we consider the subsequent openings
more important, as normally this operation is done several times by users, and optimization of the
anti-virus products take place, minimizing their impact on the systems.
Downloading files
Large files are downloaded from a local server with a GUI-less browser that allows sending HTTP re-
quests in the background. Additionally, the content of several popular websites are fetched via wget,
also from a local server.

Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- ) -

Test results
These specific test results show the impact on system performance that anti-virus products have,
compared to the other tested anti-virus products. The reported data just gives an indication and is
not necessarily applicable in all circumstances, as too many factors can play an additional part.

As we noticed that delivering percentages can easily be misinterpreted by users (as well as misused by
marketing departments or the press), and percentages would need adjustments when other hardware
specifications are being used, we grouped the percentage results by clustering them. The impact with-
in those categories does not statistically differ, also considering error measurements. The testers de-
fined the categories by consulting statistical methods like hierarchical clustering, and taking into
consideration what would be noticed from the users perspective, or compared to the impact of the
other security products. As the single performance results (page 9) are built using clusters, if some
products are faster/slower than others this is reflected in the results. We give the mean values (the
percentages refer to a system without a security product) of the clusters as an indication only:

slow mediocre fast very fast
File copying
(first run)
- - The mean value of this
cluster is over +50%
The mean value of this
cluster is under +50%
File copying
(subsequent runs)
- - The mean value of this
cluster is over +35%
The mean value of this
cluster is under +35%
Archiving/unarchiving - - The mean value of this
cluster is over +15%
The mean value of this
cluster is under +15%
Installing/uninstalling - - The mean value of this
cluster is over +40%
The mean value of this
cluster is under +40%
Encoding/transcoding - - - The mean value of this
cluster is under 2%
Open Office documents
(on first run)
- - The mean value of this
cluster is over +50%
The mean value of this
cluster is under +50%
Open Office documents
(on subsequent runs)
- - The mean value of this
cluster is over +35%
The mean value of this
cluster is under +35%
Open PDF (on first run) - - The mean value of this
cluster is over +50%
The mean value of this
cluster is under +50%
Open PDF (on subsequent
- - - The mean value of this
cluster is under +10%
Downloading files - - The mean value of this
cluster is over +60%
The mean value of this
cluster is under +60%

Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- * -

Overview of single AV-C performance scores
File copying Archiving/
Launching applications
Open Office documents Open PDF
On first run On subsequent runs On first run On subsequent runs On first run On subsequent runs












Kaspersky Lab









Trend Micro


+ey, s-o" mediocre fast very fast
Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- 0 -

PC Mark Tests
In order to provide an industry-recognized performance test, we used the PC Mark 8 Professional Edi-
testing suite. Users using PC Mark 8 benchmark
should take care to minimize all external factors
that could affect the testing suite, and strictly follow at least the suggestions documented inside the
PC Mark manual, in order to get consistent and valid/useful results. Furthermore, the tests should be
repeated several times to verify them. For more information about the various consumer scenarios
tests included in PC Mark, please read the whitepaper on their website
Without IS
is tested on a baseline
system, which scores 100 points in the PC Mark 8 Work bench-

PC Mark 8
without IS 00
Kaspersky Lab
ESET *).'
*). AVG
ThreatTrack Vipre
Symantec *'.)
Panda *&.&
Trend Micro *&.!
McAfee *%.)
Fortinet *%.'

For more information, see
PCMark is a registered trademark of Futuremark Corporation.
7 (PDF)
The PC Mark score with active Windows Defender would be 99,5.
Baseline system: Intel Core i5-3330 machine with 4GB RAM
Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- -

Summarized results
Users should weight the various subtests according to their needs. We applied a scoring system in
order to sum up the various results.
For file copying, we took the mean values, as well as for launching applications (on subsequent
runs). As in previous performance reports, very fast gets 15 points, fast gets 10 points, medio-
cre gets 5 points and slow gets zero points. This leads to the following results:

AV-C Score PC Mark Score TOTAL Impact Score
Avira, Bitdefender, Sophos 90 99,0 189,0 1,0
Avast, F-Secure, Kaspersky Lab 90 98,8 188,8 1,2
AVG 90 98,1 188,1 1,9
Qihoo 88 99,0 187,0 3,0
Symantec 90 96,8 186,8 3,2

ESET 85 98,6 183,6 6,4
eScan, ThreatTrack Vipre 85 97,6 182,6 7,4
BullGuard 83 98,8 181,8 8,2
AhnLab, Tencent 83 98,1 181,1 8,9
Panda 85 95,5 180,5 9,5
Kingsoft 83 97,2

180,2 9,8
Emsisoft 80 98,8 178,8 11,2
Fortinet 83 94,6 177,6 12,4
G DATA 80 97,2 177,2 12,8
McAfee 78 94,8 172,8 17,2
Trend Micro 75 95,3 170,3 19,7

The out-of-box system impact score with enabled Windows Defender on Microsoft Windows 8 is 5,5.
Please note that Windows Defender is not a full security suite.
Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- 2 -

Award levels reached in this test
The following award levels are for the results reached in this performance test report
. Please note
that the performance test only tells you how much impact an Internet security product may have on a
system compared to other Internet security products (please read the note on page 8); it does not tell
anything about the effectiveness of the protection a product provides, so please have also a look at
the results of recent Real-World Protection and File Detection tests on our website.


Kaspersky Lab

ThreatTrack Vipre

Trend Micro

The above awards have been given based on our assessment of the overall impact results with default
settings under Windows 8 Pro 64-Bit.

Microsoft Windows Defender was tested out-of-competition and is therefore not included in the awards page.
We suggest considering products with the same award to be as light as the other products with same award.
Anti-Virus Comparative - Performance Test (Internet Security Products) - October 20! """#av-comparatives#or$
- ! -

Copyright and Disclaimer
This publication is Copyright 2013 by AV-Comparatives e.V. . Any use of the results, etc. in whole
or in part, is ONLY permitted if the explicit written agreement of the management board of AV-
Comparatives e.V. is given prior to any publication. AV-Comparatives e.V. and its testers cannot be
held liable for any damage or loss, which might occur as a result of, or in connection with, the use of
the information provided in this paper. We take every possible care to ensure the correctness of the
basic data, but no representative of AV-Comparatives e.V. can he held liable for the accuracy of the
test results. We do not give any guarantee of the correctness, completeness, or suitability for a spe-
cific purpose of any of the information/content provided at any given time. No one else involved in
creating, producing or delivering test results shall be liable for any indirect, special or consequential
damage, or loss of profits, arising out of, or related to, the use or inability to use, the services pro-
vided by the website, test documents or any related data. AV-Comparatives e.V. is a Non-Profit Organ-
AV-Comparatives e.V. (November 2013)